I feel sorry for you and all other sad Kuro people. I am not even going to waste my time to educate a Kuro dork like you. Just look at what you said having a better light source and more colors won't help it have a better picture than the Kuro oooooooooookkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkkk. Show you a review? The Laservue has had many amazing reviews only a fool would even compare the Laservue to the Kuro. Sorry if you want to see the reviews look them up yourself I have to much fun laughing at people like you. This whole Kuro thing is silly for starters the TV is outdated has no 3D doesn't connect to the internet and have been proven to have lower picture quailty than the Laservue and the new sharp Elite. The truth is the Kuro has no better picture than mits new DLP tv's to compare it to the laservue is just silly. But I won't post nothing else you sad Kuro dorks go ahead and keep talking about a outdated TV the ruined the best home electronics company there is. Oh yeah make sure you saying about grammer I didin't proof read this that way I won't have to hurt your feelings to bad with the truth give you something that you can make fun of

Okay, okay, I get it now. You're like a 7 year old kid or something playing on your parents computer. You better knock it off or I'll tell your dad to beat your ass.

it's funny how everybody wants to quote me on this statement which was a respone to guy that was starting a fight with me. But one on yet has quoted my statement where I said a laservue is better than both of them. Laservue uses the purest light soure there is has twice as many colors than other hdtv out there. And to some people like me the 3D does matter. It also has 3D capablity. I give up on all you Kuro geeks. The new Sharp Elite is better than the Kuro. The Kuro is gone time for you nerds to move on.

I was in a Best buy Magnolia the other day and they had a Sharp Elite next to a Panasonic VT plasma displaying the same image (a space ship in a star field). The Sharp had a nice deep black background but failed to display even close to the amount of stars that the Panasonic did. The motion was also much nicer on the Panasonic. The price difference was around $2,000 more for the Sharp.

In my opinion Plasma still remains the superior display tech. I am sure with some calibration we could get a few more details out of the Sharp but I was not impressed.

I just recently found this thread on blu-ray.com. I have 2 9G Pioneer plasmas (PR0-151FD Elite and the PDP-6020FD non-elite). As you can see I am a Kuro believer! Original bought the 6020 back in June 2010 here in the SF Bay Area and was told it was the last one in the West Coast. Then, I found a used 151FD about a year ago that I couldn't pass up. Since then my baby 6020 has been stored away....I believe it literally has less than 200 hrs on it.

I don't know much about tv's but I bet if you waited till BF you could get this tv for a lot cheaper.

"It's weird that people are saying Pioneer did something "wrong". Pioneer made the best plasmas on earth and consumers were too cheap to buy them. If anyone did something wrong, it's consumers who almost never fail to choose an inferior product when given a choice." -Gremal

On the other side of the coin, I'm bewildered that some folks (mostly Kuro owners ) don't recognize the feature as a strong advantage.

There are some movies out today where you simply can't get the full experiences/see the movie per the director's intent without 3D. Hugo and Avatar come to mind, but even lesser appreciated films like Adventures of TinTin (envisioned from the ground up as a 3D motion capture film) are transformed by 3D and not the same without it!

On the other side of the coin, I'm bewildered that some folks (mostly Kuro owners ) don't recognize the feature as a strong advantage.

There are some movies out today where you simply can't get the full experiences/see the movie per the director's intent without 3D. Hugo and Avatar come to mind, but even lesser appreciated films like Adventures of TinTin (envisioned from the ground up as a 3D motion capture film) are transformed by 3D and not the same without it!

This is because we see it as a gimmick and nothing more people need to understandthat us kuro owners are owners of this set because it we demand the best in motion picture accuracy color uniformity wed rather have the studios concentrate on making solid 2d transfers better 2d panels and reliable bluay players instead of throw some cheap parlor trick at us thats meant to distract for their shortcomings
I am not a fan of wearing those ridiculous glasses they look stupid and they make my eyes hurt after awhile the few times i have gone to the theaters in imax 3d i find myself taking them off during the movie from time to time so 3d in my home? No thank you. Until thay mass produce displays that can do it right and without glasses
no offense to anyone that oos and aaaas for 3d but for me the only thing i can say rocks with 3d is ps3 games!!! Now that i dont mind getting a 3d display for and contemplating it currently lol but u can keep ur 3d movies until such time as already discussed

I guess my point is that while sometimes 3D is simply a gimmick (Pirates of the Caribbean 4), there are some movies out right now where it's a valuable part of the watching experience. With Hugo, for example, you have a movie nominated for best picture, directed by a legend, and you just DO NOT get the full experience without the 3D element. See what Scorsese says about it here:

The movie was very deliberately made with 3D in mind, and you're not watching it the way "the director intended" without it (if you care about that sort of thing). From the snow flakes falling all around the environment to the clockwork popping out of the screen, it's really quite cool. Watching it in 2D, you can recognize that something is missing just from the way the scenes are shot.

I've said it before: 3D done right is to your eyes what good surround sound is to your ears. It can make movies much more immersive.

Personally, I'd by a Sharp Elite over a Kuro if they were both sold at retail today if simply for 3D. You'll be missing out when titles like "Brave", "Prometheus" (and maybe even "Pirates: Band of Misfits") hit Blu.

I was in a Best buy Magnolia the other day and they had a Sharp Elite next to a Panasonic VT plasma displaying the same image (a space ship in a star field). The Sharp had a nice deep black background but failed to display even close to the amount of stars that the Panasonic did. The motion was also much nicer on the Panasonic. The price difference was around $2,000 more for the Sharp.

In my opinion Plasma still remains the superior display tech. I am sure with some calibration we could get a few more details out of the Sharp but I was not impressed.

Eventually, technology will catch up with us...but for the time being, my Pioneer Elite Pro-111FD and I thank you!

"Watching Fantasia I understood we could never win the war. These people seem to like complications, I thought to myself." - Yasujirô Ozu

On the other side of the coin, I'm bewildered that some folks (mostly Kuro owners ) don't recognize the feature as a strong advantage.

There are some movies out today where you simply can't get the full experiences/see the movie per the director's intent without 3D. Hugo and Avatar come to mind, but even lesser appreciated films like Adventures of TinTin (envisioned from the ground up as a 3D motion capture film) are transformed by 3D and not the same without it!

That's strictly an opinion. Contrary to what many want to believe, 3D is still a very niche market, and the overwhelming majority of people either do not care for it, or do not see it as an important factor when buying a new TV. When discussing pure picture quality, 3D (just like internet accessibility, computer mode, photo viewing, etc.) plays no role in the discussions.

I guess my point is that while sometimes 3D is simply a gimmick (Pirates of the Caribbean 4), there are some movies out right now where it's a valuable part of the watching experience. With Hugo, for example, you have a movie nominated for best picture, directed by a legend, and you just DO NOT get the full experience without the 3D element.

I did enjoy Hugo in 3D theatrically (and I'm not a 3D fan), but seeing 3D in a theatre and seeing it on most home TVs is a completely different experience. I saw Hugo theatrically twice, but I was in an electronics store where they had a 3D demo system set up with Hugo and the experience was vastly inferior. On the TV, there was a big decline in dimensionality - instead you get a series of flat planes.

Unfortunately, you don't know which movies have bad 3D until you see them. The 3D in "John Carter" was not great and in retrospect, I would have preferred to have seen it in 2D. The 3D in Thor was also disappointing. The 3D in the trailers for Star Wars I and Titanic also looked really bad to me. Aside from animated films, where the 3D tends to work pretty well, I generally would rather see movies in 2D.

I could make the case that 3D makes movies less immersive because the screen looks smaller when watching with 3D glasses. In addition, the image is far dimmer, although thanks to 3D, many 2D movies are also dimmer because they generally don't remove the 3D filters when projecting 2D (if they're using the Sony 4K projector.)

That's strictly an opinion. Contrary to what many want to believe, 3D is still a very niche market, and the overwhelming majority of people either do not care for it, or do not see it as an important factor when buying a new TV. When discussing pure picture quality, 3D (just like internet accessibility, computer mode, photo viewing, etc.) plays no role in the discussions.

Actually, it's fact, not opinion, that some movies were made for 3D. Again, I point to Hugo or TinTin, Deep Sea 3D, etc.

You miss something without 3D. As a result, you miss something with the Kuro.

Is 3D a niche? To a degree, but it's currently a high-end feature, and high-end products are always a niche. Case in point, the Kuro was discontinued not because it wasn't a great set, but because not enough people bought it.

That said, 3D sets are poised to be about 1/4 of the sets sold by Q3 2012, and that ratio will likely increase as 3D becomes cheaper while movie selection increases.

At any rate, high-end sets nowadays probably wouldn't sell a unit without 3D, and I'd be willing to wager the Sharp Elite would outsell the Kuro today if both were offered at retail.

Before the Sharp Elite, you could say the Kuro had good enough 2D quality that you give up too much by "upgrading" to a newer 3D set, but with the Sharp Elite nearly matching the 2D quality of the Kuro according to most reviewers while having certain aspects that SURPASS the Kuro, well... I'm afraid to say the Kuro may have to give up the crown.

At the very least, it has a strong rival with the very strong advantage of 3D!

Actually, it's fact, not opinion, that some movies were made for 3D. Again, I point to Hugo or TinTin, Deep Sea 3D, etc.

You miss something without 3D. As a result, you miss something with the Kuro.

Is 3D a niche? To a degree, but it's currently a high-end feature, and high-end products are always a niche. Case in point, the Kuro was discontinued not because it wasn't a great set, but because not enough people bought it.

That said, 3D sets are poised to be about 1/4 of the sets sold by Q3 2012, and that ratio will likely increase as 3D becomes cheaper while movie selection increases.

At any rate, high-end sets nowadays probably wouldn't sell a unit without 3D, and I'd be willing to wager the Sharp Elite would outsell the Kuro today if both were offered at retail.

Before the Sharp Elite, you could say the Kuro had good enough 2D quality that you give up too much by "upgrading" to a newer 3D set, but with the Sharp Elite nearly matching the 2D quality of the Kuro according to most reviewers while having certain aspects that SURPASS the Kuro, well... I'm afraid to say the Kuro may have to give up the crown.

At the very least, it has a strong rival with the very strong advantage of 3D!

My wife and I never go to theater to see a movie BUT when Hugo came out and the grand kids wanted to see it, we saw it in 3D.

When it came out on disc, I purchased Hugo in 2D Blu, it was much better in 2D.

Actually, it's fact, not opinion, that some movies were made for 3D. Again, I point to Hugo or TinTin, Deep Sea 3D, etc.

You miss something without 3D. As a result, you miss something with the Kuro.

It may be a "fact" that it was made for 3D, but it is still opinion as to whether someone enjoys it more in 2D or 3D and whether 3D should play a role in determining the quality of a display. For me, I enjoy movies in 2D much more than 3D (and you can't argue it's because of equipment). It's my own personal opinion, regardless of what was "intended".

I have no problem with manufacturers adding 3D to their sets, as long as it does not detract from the 2D picture and/or features. As for the whether a fake "Elite" would outsell a true Kuro (without 3D), I think you'd be very surprised as to which one would come up the winner. Unfortunately, we'll never know the outcome of that.

My wife and never go to theater to see a movie BUT when Hugo came out and the grand kids wanted to see it, we saw it in 3D.

When it came out on disc, I purchased Hugo in 2D Blu, it was much better in 2D.

m

EXACTLY! I saw hugo and tin tin with my son in imax 3d in manhattan and yes the real imax screen the only one certified by imax and i have to say they both look better in 2d on my kuro
If i missed anything it was the eye strain from the glasses